Friskbiskit

The New Look

You might have noticed things look just a little bit different around here.  That's right, a period of record traffic on the blog (Hi everyone, thanks for stopping by!) seemed like the perfect time to change templates. :P

But I had some reader feedback that the posts were hard to read, and truth be told, the tiny font on that old Masala template had been driving me nuts for a long time.  So, this here's the new look.  It's not all that much different from before, some of you might not even have noticed.  But the font is bigger, and it's more spacious overall. (Go ahead, stretch out, put your feet up, and kick back.) The only thing I'm not wild about is the greyscale font in the sidebars.  Ah well.  Nothing's ever perfect, is it?

More on the Google Settlement

Good God, you're thinking, is she ever going to let up?  I can't take it anymore.  What happened to the absurdity, porn and pics of hot guys I come here for?

I feel you.  And actually, this is just a brief, brief update with a couple of links.  And here, here's some eye candy for your troubles.

But I've been reading The Fiction Circus and I just can't let it pass unremarked that, among the literary estates represented by DeVore, the lawyer that got us an extension on the deadline to opt out of the Google settlement, was the Phillip K. Dick Trust.  How cool is that?  Here's TFC's awesome post about it.

And, the Fiction Circus guys also conducted a long, long interview with James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the New York Law School who wrote an amicus brief (whatever that is, sounds like friendly underpants)  addressing antitrust concerns regarding the Google settlement.  It's worth your time.

Where is the M/M at B&N?

Part two in this week's Publishing Gloom Series involves my long-time nemesis, the local Barnes and Noble.  Full disclosure: my frustration with my local B&N began a few years ago when my novel Inventing Memory was released.  They stocked it, sold out of it pretty quickly but did not reorder until I asked them to.  We went a few rounds like that, with the copies consistently selling out, but never being reordered unless I personally went in and requested it.  Realizing that if this was happening at my local store, it was also likely happening at other B&Ns across the country, where I could not go in every couple of weeks and play surrogate book buyer, I became demoralized, and eventually gave up.  Sales on that book are the reason I don't write under my own name any more.

So, anyway, not one to hold a grudge, I was delighted to have the opportunity to go into my local B&N last week and buy an m/m romance novel in the romance section.  I was really chuffed that B&N had agreed to stock the Running Press books where they are likely to sell the most copies, but when I got there, I couldn't find them on any of the New In Paperback tables at the front of the store, nor in any of the New in Romance tables or displays (four all together) on the second floor, where the bulk of the fiction is stocked.  Hmm.

After a thorough search, I finally found one copy of Transgressions, face in in the romance section.  One copy?  Surely that wasn't all they'd ordered?  And what about Alex's book, False Colors?  On a hunch, I checked the gay studies section, where lo and behold, each book was prominently displayed on the New In shelf. 

I talked to a manager about the importance of stocking the books where the publisher intended them to be, where the audience they were being marketed to would find them, and most importantly of all, where they would actually sell.  See, the only problem with shelving them in gay studies is that people are not generally shopping for fiction in that section, and romance novels have a tendency to sit there, untouched, which, as it turns out, is the reason why they were so easy to find there.  No one was buying them. 

An assistant manager informed me that the staff had a meeting about the Running Press books, and in contradiction with the agreement B&N made with Running Press, decided to cross shelve the books.  Two in romance and two in gay studies.  Only, by the looks of things, the ones slated for romance got shelved face in, with no fanfare.  Despite this, three of the four Running Press m/m titles that were shelved in romance were no longer there.  I couldn't confirm that they had sold but they were definitely getting circulation. 

Unfortunately, no matter how well Alex and Erastes' books sell in the romance section, if the store continues to hold two copies of each in gay studies, instead of restocking them where they're selling, then they won't get reordered, because as long as those two copies are sitting there, the inventory system will show them as beng in stock.

After a long conversation in which I elaborated on the theme of m/m selling better in romance, and the assistant manager did her best to impress upon me the irrelevance of my viewpoint to internal decisions about where books get stocked, I finally got her agreement to let my concerns be known to the rest of the staff, and I left my information with a request for the general manager to call me.  Haven't heard from him, natch. 

Alex and Erastes have blogged that other B&Ns are doing much better by them than mine is.  I can only hope that my experience is an isolated one.  Just the same, it might not be a bad idea to check with your local B&N, and let them know that as a customer, you support the publisher's decision to market them as romance novels.

BTW, this all took place last week, but I've been too upset about it to post anything until now, when the overwhelming avalanche of publishing biz injustice has deadened me to all but the most acute sensations.  Honestly, it really is getting to the point that I don't know where to turn any more.  I haven't been fucked by any epublishers yet, and All Romance eBooks and Fictionwise and Powell's seem to be okay.  And there's Book View Cafe, which will hopefully grow into something wonderful.  And yet, these days, I find myself tensing for the next blow. 

I feel like I should apologize for taking such a negative tone in a blog that's supposed to be about celebrating m/m and the brave frontiers of new publishing technologies, but these are real life decisions that impact our ability to conduct our trade, and they're being made by uninformed third parties who do not share our stake in the matter. And what they're doing is wrong.

Justice Dept. Gives Google Settlement the Fisheye

What a difference a day makes.  When I posted about the Google settlement last night, things were looking pretty grim.  Now, we have an extension on the deadline to opt out, and the Justice Department is opening an antitrust inquiry into the matter.  Of course, this doesn't mean that they will necessarily block the settlement, but we can hope. 

And maybe do more than hope.  We have time now to take action, and give voice to our interests.  Speaking of which, this line from the NYT report bothers me:

Google, as well as the authors and publishers, have defended the settlement

Wait, what? The authors?  Which ones, cuz that ain't me, bub.  And this, perhaps, is the crux of the problem we face.  Ironically, we, whose stock in trade is communication, seem to have no voice in public discourse.  There are plenty of people running around pretending to speak for authors.  But who actually listens to anything an author has to say, outside of the pages of a book?  (More on that tomorrow.)

Part of the problem is that we are such a diverse group that our interests are not identical.  As has been proven, various organizations established ostensibly to protect author interests may be corrupt, or have an agenda all authors do not agree with, or be inept, or even simply be out of touch with the times.  It seems an open question whether an organization can be devised that empowers authors and gives us a voice in the decisions that affect our trade.

But many of us do live in democracies and as individuals have the right to free speech, so let's use that, at least.  And Twitter.  Don't forget about Twitter.  Tags for the google settlement include #gbs and #optout, btw.

Authors Have One Week to Opt Out/In on Google Settlement

Update:  According to Publisher's Weekly, New York Judge Denny Chin has granted a four month extension of the deadline to opt out or object to the Google Settlement.  This comes as a direct result of the intiative brought forward by Gail Knight Steinbeck and several other concerned parties, including Mike Perry, mentioned at the bottom of this post.  Thank you Mike, Gail, Rt. Hon. Denny Chin, etc.  You guys rock!

The article quotes Author's Guild Prez Paul Aiken thus:  "We’d hoped for a shorter extension of time, since we’re eager to get on to the next phase of the process."  Yeah, I bet you were, Paul.

I know that back in December, I posted that the settlement Google reached with Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers sounded like it would be of benefit to authors.  I apologize.  I was so wrong.  Having taken a closer look at the terms of the agreement, I think this is a rotten deal, for a number of reasons. 

First of all, the way the deal is structured makes it cost-prohibitive for anyone else to do what Google is doing re scanning and making searchable enormous quantities of books.  It effectively gives Google a monopoly on searching and distributing any book written before January 5, 2009.

In the $110 million dollar settlement, Google is paying the lawyers from the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers $30 million for their work in the so-called class action suit.  Another $35 million goes to establish a brand new entity created by the agreement called the Book Rights Registry (BRR).  Every author whose copyrights were found to be infringed by Google's activity up until now gets to divide up the remaining $45 million, which comes to about $60 a title.

The BRR (I feel a chill) is a monopoly in its own right, established with no industry or governmental oversight.  They will collect the money from licensing and advertising, take a percentage and distribute the rest.  Payments to authors are divided between the author and the publisher of the work, regardless of whether or not the publisher previously held electronic rights. (Are you still wondering why publishers aren't yelling about this?) BRR is in effect a mandatory electronic rights agent for all authors, answerable to no one.  There is no mechanism for removing BRR from its position.  This to me is the scariest aspect of a settlement that has no shortage of horrors.

So, Author's Guild and AAP took an issue which many believed to be fair use, conflated it with copyright violation, and now, is selling authors' electronic rights down the river while pocketing a tidy sum for themselves.  Thanks guys, so glad to have you watching my back.  Hey!  What's that knife doing there?

Anybody want to make a bet as to whether BRR hires the suit's law firm, Boni & Zack, when all is said and done?

I digress.

Since this is a class action suit, the terms of the settlement apply to you whether you consent to it or not.  The only way not to be bound by the terms of the agreement is to opt out by May 5, 2009.  That's a week from today, folks.  I urge you to take action on your behalf.  The Greyson Agency (not my agent but my agent forwarded their guide to me) has a downloadable .pdf with guidelines for each of your options here: http://graysonagency.com/blog/uncategorized/guide-to-the-google-settlement-in-pdf/

Briefly, you can opt in, and register your works with Google, in which case you are eligible to collect the monies BRR feels you are due.  You can opt out, which does not mean Google can't or won't scan your work, but your electronic rights will remain intact and you are entitled to sue them for breach of copyright if you so choose.  (And good luck with that, friend.)  You can opt in and object, which requires the services of a lawyer, and, should your objection fail, leaves you still bound by the agreement.  You can do nothing, and still be bound by the terms of the agreement, plus lose your right to sue, plus be ineligible to collect money from BRR. 

With such a plethora of delightful options, how can one choose?

You know, I try to be upbeat around here.  Nobody likes a hater, and I'd rather focus on love.  But on a day like today, when the disregard, the contempt, the hatred for authors that permeates every nook and cranny of the industry is so blatant, so unavoidable, well, I find myself hating too.  In particular, I have a big hate boner for the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers, who brokered this shit pile.  Boy, did they pull one over on us, pretending to be championing our interests, when in reality this was nothing more than an opportunistic money grab.  They're collecting a fat fee in exchange for the future economic well-being of every author in North America.  They deserve to be disbanded for this. 

So, if you're as pissed off as I am, here are few things you can do:

SPREAD THE WORD.  The fact that this isn't all over the internet suggests to me that people are not aware of it.  Tell everyone.

Make a decision regarding the future of your electronic rights.  If you have an agent, speak with her about your best option among these very poor choices.  Go to http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ to exercise your option. 

If you wish your book to be listed and searchable in Google's registry, writer-editor Anita Bartholemew comments in a Publisher's Weekly post that you can still arrange that with them without opting into this settlement.   The way to do this is through their Google Books Partner Program.

Write to your congressperson, the White House, the Register of Copyrights, and local news services regarding this issue.

Check your copyrights and register any that you wish to protect through traditional copyright law:  http://www.copyright.gov

Support small press publisher Mike Perry's initiative to extend the May 5 deadline.  More info here:
http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/25/why-the-google-settlement-is-anti-author-and-why-writers-deserve-four-more-months-for-opt-outs-and-objections/

Don't let the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers get away with their chicanery.  Contact them and let them know exactly what you think of the way in which they have represented your interests.

The Authors Guild
31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Phone: (212) 563-5904
Fax: (212) 564-5363

E-mail: staff@authorsguild.org

Association of American Publishers, Inc.
Washington Office:

50 F Street, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
202.347.3375
f: 202.347.3690

New York Office:

71 Fifth Avenue, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 212-255-0200
Fax: 212-255-7007

And, once again, SPREAD THE WORD.

Link Love

Here's a link to a post on a blog I've never heard of before, on a topic that has nothing to do with m/m or publishing or new technologies, well, almost nothing, anyway.  The point is, I adore this post.  I've lived in Michigan my whole life and this is my third recession, and I love this post. 

http://www.parttimesoup.com/2009/03/whats-still-great-about-michigan.html

My fave pull quote:

And the last reason that Michigan is still great is the same as the reason it sucks. Face it, Michigan is wiped out. That means we are desperate and very willing to change. Want us to tear out our old infrastructure and rebuild it? Sure. We'll do it quick and take chickens in payment.

 

I laughed so hard tears were streaming down my face.  At least, I think it was because I was laughing.

Best-selling Author Sued for Defamation, Emotional Distress

Heywood Smith, author of The Red Hat Club, is being sued by Vicki Stewart, who claims that the character SuSu in the novel resembles herself in numerous ways.  Smith and Stewart have known one another for over 50 years.  Defamation suits based on characters in novels usually get dismissed based on the work being fictional, but not this time.  The Georgia Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the case.  Smith and her attorneys will likely appeal the decision or ask that it be heard by the state supreme court.

If the decision goes against Smith, it could set a dangerous precedent and leave authors vulnerable to libel suits.  Here's a link to more information on the case.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1206960402189

Happy Inauguration Day!

How cool is it that the inauguration comes one day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day?

I am thinking good thoughts and putting protective blue light around everyone gathered in D.C. today.  May this joyful day pass peacefully and the important work ahead of us commence.

So, Slashing the Inauguration.  Well, I didn't get any stories from anyone, and I'll be honest, once I started writing mine, I realized I hadn't really thought it through.  I squicked myself!  It's true.  Apparently, there are some areas of life in which I don't want hot man on man action, and the first presidency I'm not cynical about turns out to be one of them.  Who knew?

Well, I'm posting the story here anyway, because I said I would.  I think it turned our pretty well, though when you read it, you'll see that I backed off from an explicit sex scene.  The story is R, mainly for Rahm Emmanuel's swearing. 

In doing the research for the story, I learned a lot.  There actually is Obama slash out there, for one thing.  There are some very fun political fandom groups on LJ (Thanks Mary Lou.  Someday, I will learn the secret of finding shit on LJ.  I swear to you, I looked.)  Here's a link to my favorite, rahmbamarama, which has really cute chibis of the whole Obama cabinet.  Oh, and this blog will turn you into a raving Rahm fan.  Other stuff I found out: The Lincoln bedroom has a flat screen TV and Obama wants it out of there.  But the Lincoln bedroom does not have a balcony, even though in my story it does.  Some people think President Harding was gay.  More people think Lincoln was bi.  And, best of all, Rahm Emmanuel once ended a phone conversation with a democratic candidate with these words:

"Don't fuck it up or I'll fuck you. I'll kill you. All right, I love you. Bye."

(Could Rahm be our Al Swearengen? Am I under the influence of Rahmania?)

Anyway, without further ado, here is the link to my Obama/Rahm slash story: Obama Sneaks a Cigarette.  To download the .pdf, please proceed to the free fiction page.  And don't fuck it up.  Okay, I love you.  Bye.

Transparency and the Third Anne Harris

You know, I'm big on permission-based marketing and internet ethics and I love the fact that networked communities are making being nice a business asset.  One of the tenets of internet culture is transparency.  Not only is it good practice to let others know what you stand to profit from, keeping identities and relationships out in the open also makes life a lot simpler. 

But what do you do when one set of ethical principles conflicts with another? 

I've never made any secret about the fact that Jessica Freely and Anne Harris are the same person.  What I haven't discussed on Friskbiskit is that I am also a YA author, working under yet a third pseudonym.  I've given a lot of thought to managing three pseudonyms, and especially the boundary between my M/M erotica and my YA science fiction.  I think it is important for artists to express the full range of their creativity and I also think it is important that young people find entertainment that is appropriate for them. 

That is why I won't be mentioning my YA pseudonym or titles here.  This will minimize the changes that Friskbiskit shows up on a search for my YA work.  I know I can't prevent a curious YA reader with good Google skills from finding out all about Jessica and Friskbiskit and my m/m erotic romance.  All I can do is try to make what I write as Jessica Freely and what I write for young readers as distinct as possible.